This website uses cookies to help us give you the best experience when you visit our website. By continuing to use this website, you consent to our use of these cookies. For full details visit https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/legal-information

This website uses cookies to help us give you the best experience when you visit our website. By continuing to use this website, you consent to our use of these cookies. For full details visit https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/legal-information

Search form

You are here

bunkai and "grappling"

Since the 90's when 'bunkai' and kata application started getting wider exposure, it seems like Karate has gone through a number of phases as regards 'grappling' interpretations of kata.

I've seen everything from a simple shoulder lock to Osoto gari, to a supposed complete groundfighting set for naihanchin. Like everyone else, i've learned and employ plenty of throws, locks, etc. in Karate, so this is not a thread about whether that stuff is "in kata", or whether we should know some of it... i'm guessing almost everyone will agree on those things.

Sometimes I wonder thoughj, when does "grappling" in Karate go too far? Do we sometimes give too much time to a secondary skillset?

If you look up some random youtube videos, you can find whole grappling sets' for some kata, some of these videos are quite good technically, and some are just strange. Some fit well with the kata movements, and some are a big stretch.

This isn't a question about whether you should know that stuff, or about whether Okinawans knew how to grapple, I go on the assumption that the answer is yes to both of those on some level. However, sometimes I do wonder with Kata application whether obvious and quite effective uses of technique are being overlooked in favor of (often more complex) grappling-centric ones. The thing is, some say that Kata can be whatever you want it to be, this is true..but i also wonder if maybe it isn't worth thinking a bit about what the kata creators actually intended, or at least our version of what they intended. In this case, do we really think that someone ever intended a groundfighting set for Naihanchin, or intended Karate to emphasize complex lock flows and similar?

Again, this is not advocating block-kick-punch "3 k" kata application, it's a larger question of strategy in how people view kata.

P.S. Apologies is this is a thread that has been done to death already, if so we can call it quits!

There was a span there were some were looking for the answer to ground fighting in kata bunkai. It happened about the same time that BJJ was really starting to take off and being without ground work was a major detriment to what you were doing. While I do think some of the movements in kata are applicable once you hit the floor, I don't think you'll find a complete ground system in up right kata. Sometimes I think the quest for complicated grappling bunkai is there just to show how "deeply" the person presenting it has delved. Sort of a justification for "Oh, yes you can hit someone with this punch, but it's really a double inverted throw. If you know anything about the application of kata". Yes, I ramble. I guess there are times when people just go a little too far. Out of zeal for the subject or the desire to know more and be able to show off, doesn't matter. Every now and then, a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick.

as you have allready mentioned, that whole grappling aspect is out of the secondary toolbox, as are kicks in my eyes too. So when we look at kata as for self defence we should always look for simple things. Main theme is punching or enable you to punch (getting limbs out of the way, passing limbs). Locks, kicks and throws can be used to increase the accuracy for the punch, due to the fact that you position the enemy with those kind of actions the way you need him to be in order to land a punch.

So you need to know the basics of how to apply a lock, a throw and how to get up as quick as possible when being on the ground. But you can never outgrapple a skilled groundfighter with the skills advocated by kata.

I think one of the issues we have is that the word “grappling” can mean different things to different people. When martial artists hear the word they often think of modern highly skilled MMA / BJJ grappling, but that kind of grappling is not in kata. When I wrote my Karate’s Grappling Methods book twelve years ago I was clear on this:

“Kata techniques were not deigned for use against other martial artists in rule bound situations. If your aim is to complete in sport grappling, or to have the skills needed to out wrestle a trained grappler, then it would be prudent to consider taking up a dedicated grappling art such as wrestling, judo or jujutsu.” – Page 171, Karate’s Grappling Methods, 2000.

What I have found though is that some people assume that all grappling is the same and hence “karate grappling” was similar to BBJ etc; when clearly it is not. This confusion has lead to some karate people really stretching things to say there are ways of passing guard etc in traditional kata. I agree with Zach’s comment that people do take things too far in this regards.

In the 1935 book “Karate-Do Kyohan” Gichin Funakoshi wrote “In karate, hitting, thrusting, and kicking are not the only methods, throwing techniques and pressure against joints are included … all these techniques should be studied referring to basic kata”. What is key for me is that in the same section he also writes “One must always keep in mind that since the essence of karate is found in a single thrust or kick, and one should never be grasped by or grapple with an opponent, one must be careful not to be defeated through concern with throwing an opponent or applying a joint punishment hold.” So grappling is part of karate, but it is very much secondary to the striking; which is in keeping with karate’s nature as a civilian art.

Further evidence that the methods found within kata were not for a skilled square go can be found in Shoshin Nagamine's book “Tales of Okinawa's Great Masters” (translated by Patrick McCarthy). Nagamine tells us that Motobu said, “The applications of kata have their limits and one must come to understand this. The techniques of the kata were never developed to be used against a professional fighter in an arena or on a battlefield. They were, however, most effective against someone who had no idea of the strategy being used to counter their aggressive behaviour.” This is not to say karate grappling is in any way deficient. It simply means it was designed for a certain set of circumstances (civilian self-protection) and that we need to be clear on what kind of grappling we are discussing. If you think of the direct low-level methods that most martial artists would utilise in actual self-defence – as opposed to the methods martial artists use to outsmart each other – that is the karate of the 1900s and of the kata.

Obviously karateka can take methods from grappling systems and make it part of their practise, but to say certain methods were “always there” is dubious. It also distracts from the actual grappling that was always there.

There is also the possibility of using the principles of the karate grappling in kata to form a link with other systems too. Here is an extract from my “Arm-Locks for All Styles” book that touches on that:

Arm-Locks for All Styles wrote:

You should also look at how other arts apply the principles recorded in our forms. All arm-locks are based on the exact same principles, regardless of the art from which they originate. If we can learn a new variation on the techniques of the forms, or a new way of expressing the core principles, we would be foolish to ignore them just because they come from another art.

At the start of this chapter we said that one of the roles of the forms was to record techniques and principles. So if we are to learn new techniques, does that mean we have to create new forms? There is no reason why you couldn’t create further forms, but in my opinion there is no real need to.

Any ‘new’ arm-lock is sure to have plenty in common with the techniques already present in your existing forms. All you need to do is ‘mentally attach’ the new technique to that part of the form. You don’t alter the form; simply make a mental note of the ‘new variation’ of the technique in the form. In the same way that the founder of the form only recorded specific examples to express core principles, you are simply attaching the new technique to that in the form which best demonstrates the principles upon which it is based. This will give you a point of reference and method of recording the technique, which is, after all, one of the key functions of the form. Whilst it is possible that the founder of the form may not have been aware of that specific technique, they were aware of the underlying principles and I feel certain they would welcome their form being used to record these additional methods.

I’m sure there are some who would argue that recording ‘non-traditional’ techniques using a ‘traditional medium’ is not acceptable. However, to my mind the ‘traditional’ function of a form is to record effective techniques and principles. That is exactly what we are doing on the occasions when we ‘attach’ arm-locks to the form that were derived from other sources.

A much longer post than I intended! The bottom line is that the grappling of kata is “of a type” and it should not be confused with other types of grappling. However, there is no need to limit our study and there is no reason why we can’t build upon the methods in kata through the adaptation of methods originating elsewhere. Linking those methods to the kata through common principles would also be a good way for the karateka to organise the totality of what they do. The demarcation between the various combative contexts should remain in mind though.

that whole grappling aspect is out of the secondary toolbox, as are kicks in my eyes too. So when we look at kata as for self defence we should always look for simple things ... So you need to know the basics of how to apply a lock, a throw and how to get up as quick as possible when being on the ground. But you can never outgrapple a skilled groundfighter with the skills advocated by kata.

I cross train with BJJ when I can. My superfast karate reflexes work great, as soon as I get put in a submission that I know I cant get out of, I can tap out extremely fast! Seriously, though Karate does have some elements of grappling and even some groundfighting, it is 2 different worlds. The one overlap that I see, (I am not calling it bunkai, oyo, secret ninja technique, etc; just merely a general observation I have made) is that of limb control/hikite. In Karate, often times, the "grappling" is often hikite/limb control to open up or off balance opponent for a strike. In BJJ, the limb control is to set up for a submission. Again, that is NOT SAYING BJJ IS IN KATA. Just noticed that since training a little BJJ, Im much more aware of the importance of grabbing/hikite/controlling limbs when im working partner drills in Karate. I know it may seem like a stretch for some, but again, it is just something that I personally noticed in my own training.

I cross train with BJJ when I can. My superfast karate reflexes work great, as soon as I get put in a submission that I know I cant get out of, I can tap out extremely fast! Seriously, though Karate does have some elements of grappling and even some groundfighting, it is 2 different worlds. The one overlap that I see, (I am not calling it bunkai, oyo, secret ninja technique, etc; just merely a general observation I have made) is that of limb control/hikite. In Karate, often times, the "grappling" is often hikite/limb control to open up or off balance opponent for a strike. In BJJ, the limb control is to set up for a submission. Again, that is NOT SAYING BJJ IS IN KATA. Just noticed that since training a little BJJ, Im much more aware of the importance of grabbing/hikite/controlling limbs when im working partner drills in Karate. I know it may seem like a stretch for some, but again, it is just something that I personally noticed in my own training.

Wow.....You took the words right out of my mouth....When I went to a few BJJ and Aikido seminars in the past, I notice in certain techniques that utilizes grabbing pressure points to the side of rib cage, groin, mouth cheeks, poke in the eyes, e.t.c..More importantely, I said to myself that I can also use these techniques in certain pinan or taikyoku katas for my personal arsenal.....It comes to show that our training in karate is indeed endless and something new will develop.

I don't think that you can take things to far. Because I think since it's your journey, or my journey, that things go as far as we need them to. For some people, that may be over the cliff we may choose for our journey, but we kinda need those people to go over our edges. Sometimes that pulls us closer.

Recently I got a chance to have a nice three on one Judo training session. I went into the evening with a list of researched throws that others had said were definitely in, could be in, maybe were in kata. The black belts were very interested in helping me. I left with a great understanding of how wrong some of the research was, how right some things were in a completely different place. But in the end I was moved closer to the edge.

I think the same goes for ground fighting. Sorry, but just watching the first lesson of the Gracie Combatives video I couldn't help but see Tekki/Naihanchi. I wasn't looking to prove that Tekki/Naihanchi was a ground fighting kata. I just similar movements. Principles. I am still not saying that Tekki/Naihanchi is a ground fighting kata, and I don't even think it was made for that. But to Iain's point...the principles are there. And that's good enough for me.

I'll let others go off the deepend in the mean time...that way I know how deep things are that make more sense to me.

I actually think that Judo and Jujutsu are very different from Karate, at least in my own experience they are almost an 'inversion'..a different strategy entirely, and definitely a different set of bodily skills and ingrained habits. As an example, a typical Jujutsu (t no idea about BJJ) class spends as much time on learning to roll, fall, and do tai sabaki drill as a Karate class spends on kihon. whatever the flavor of Karate or Jujutsu involved, this has a gigantic effect on how you move..I don't know, maybe even think with combative stuff.

Of course it's beneficial to one's Karate to learn these arts, but they are very different I think, the way you enter into an Osoto gari in Judo might differ from what you in Karate, even though tehy are technically the same technique, it's a different context because the respective arts place a much different emphasis on the technique, it occupies a different place in each art.

I think it's worth pondering what the kata creators actually meant in terms of strategy and tactics, if we don't, then kata is just an empty container for us to fill up, rather than a living thing..it either teaches something or not, what use is it if we can just put anything in there?

Of course It's true that in the end it IS our own journey and we choose what to make of it, i'm not interested in telling anyone they are wrong or anything like that, I just don't quite get why people would bother with kata if they do not think the meanings are reasonably specific,

I also think it's worth considering that people only have so much time, and generally it could be said to be more beneficial to have a simple, streamlined view of what they are doing as regards kata,.rather than viewing kata as something that includes anything that happens to look like we can make it 'fit'.

Recently I got a chance to have a nice three on one Judo training session. I went into the evening with a list of researched throws that others had said were definitely in, could be in, maybe were in kata. The black belts were very interested in helping me. I left with a great understanding of how wrong some of the research was, how right some things were in a completely different place. But in the end I was moved closer to the edge.

Just out of curiosity what throws did you find in kata? I know Iain has showed cross buttocks (koshi gurumma) in heian/pinan sandan, and osoto gari (large outer reaping) and Seo nage (shoulder throw) in Funakoshi's 9 throws seminar.

I believe that most TMA sit somewhere in the middle of the striking-grappling spectrum. Karate's primary weapon is striking, but karate is not descended of boxing, rather the traditions of southern china, where the emphasis is on controlling the opponent to affect strikes are the progenitors of the Okinawan arts. IMO the skills of control (joint locking, balance disruption etc) and manipulation (trapping/clearing escapes etc), impart sufficient skill and understanding of the body to give the karateka a fighting chance in most situations. I also believe that training from contact is a vital tool for developing flexible useable skills in this area.

I believe that most TMA sit somewhere in the middle of the striking-grappling spectrum. Karate's primary weapon is striking, but karate is not descended of boxing, rather the traditions of southern china, where the emphasis is on controlling the opponent to affect strikes are the progenitors of the Okinawan arts. IMO the skills of control (joint locking, balance disruption etc) and manipulation (trapping/clearing escapes etc), impart sufficient skill and understanding of the body to give the karateka a fighting chance in most situations. I also believe that training from contact is a vital tool for developing flexible useable skills in this area.

It's not about it being descended from boxing, just having a simple plan. At any rate, boxing also used to have throws..but it was not Judo! You have to decide how you are going to fight to some degree, it doesn't mean excluding anything, just choosing what you focus on and what is ancillary.

My point was just that boxing is currently pure percussive fighting and many folk have thought of karate in the same way, whereas karate originates from a much less polarised notion of fighting, a much more organic blend of control manipulation and striking.

If karateka study the art with a focus on that blend I believe they will have more than enough grappling to cope with non UFC champions.

As I mentioned in the original post, I'm not talking about whether or not people do throws, locks, etc..pretty safe bet that almost everyone here does, probably not much need to argue that point.

I'm talking specifically about kata bunkai that revolve around grappling, and take grappling as a primary strategy.. things like Naihanchin groundfighting etc., i've seen whole "tuite" sets too for kata, these are what i'm wondering about.

An art isn't just a "blend" of tactics, there should be an overarching strategy at work as well, right?

As I understood it your original post you are questioning the degree to which some people seek to apply grappling as an area of karate?
I should have stated more clearly that I agree with the bulk of opinion so far, that grappling is a sub set of skills to the primary method of striking. Now jump to my first post of the thread, the skills of control and manipulation I discuss are control and manipulation in support of striking. The contact skills honed in support of striking, which I believe are the extent of grappling present in kata, should be sufficient such that extravagant forays into grappling centric combat via the kata.
I hope that makes my view clearer.

What i really found to be interesting was to think about the original purpose of kata:

Take Nathan Johnson interpretation of Naihanchi (Naifuanchi) - if it is as he presumes and logically argues for then the kata is older than Funakoshi, Motubu, Kenwa etc. etc. and therefor whatever they asume or said regarding the kata, might be wrong, if they have got the wrong purpuse also!

Not sure how much I subscribe to any idea being objectively "wrong" - that depends on what we are trying to acheive. Nor do I think that neccessarily we should be patterning our Karate entirely on the old masters - i'm trying to come at this from a more practical perspective - what you train, how you think about what you train. Not neccessariyl something that needs validation from old masters or historical practices..

Meaning no offense to Johnson or anyone else, but this video is a good example of the kind of stuff that makes me go hmmmm - a whole string of grappling/manipulation techniques, made to "fit" the kata. In some places the techniques here have quesitonable validity without a compliant partner - or at the very least are reall high risk, and in others they involve doing some downright suicidal stuff - such as standing with your feet on one line with the attacker below your center of gravity, directly in front. It just seems like someone took some Jujutsu (minus the tai sabaki - so that it fits Naihanchin walking I guess) and tried to come up with something that would fit in with the whole kata. It looks cool, it's probably fun - but I feel pretty iffy about the effectiveness of what's shown in the Kodo Ryu video.

@Zach Zinn - thank you for viewing the video - with all due respect i understand your viewpoint. I was thinking the same before i read his books on the topic and trained with one of his 6th degree top instructors in private.

I can promise you that the moves are not fit to the kata, it is exactly how the kata is perfomed shorin style. And the partner is in no way complient, it is highly skilled tuite manipulation, and it hurts like ****.... !

What Johnson argues is that Naihanchi is originally designed for law enforcement arresting skill back in the old china. Therefor there are no strikes. Really interesting, if anyone wanted to get some inspiration other than "creative interpretation" which i myself loves and do most of my time - they should dig into some of his books on the topic.

No pun intended.

--

ps. and yes it is exactly to train to fit the purpuse - johnson as far as i understood tries to unravel the mystery and the original purpuse of naihanchi from the original creator- why was it created and what was its 1 true function at that time.

@Zach Zinn - thank you for viewing the video - with all due respect i understand your viewpoint. I was thinking the same before i read his books on the topic and trained with one of his 6th degree top instructors in private.

I can promise you that the moves are not fit to the kata, it is exactly how the kata is perfomed shorin style. And the partner is in no way complient, it is highly skilled tuite manipulation, and it hurts like ****.... !

Regardless of personal anecdote, i'm just going by what I see, and the fact that i'm familiar with similar stuff from Jujutsu cross training. If some of those techniques fail (probably a distinct possibility with small joint manipulation) the performer is in a perfect position to get his legs yanked out from under him and get dropped on the back of his head - especially with his feet paralell! I have to say it's one of the only Naihanchin bunkai i've seen in years where the techniques are done directly to the front - the stance is weakest in that direction! I applaud the effort that went into this, but personally i'm not convinced! usually these techniques are done with body shifting, and that's what makes the effective, it seems like a real stretch to me to superimpose them on the Naihanchin embusen pattern.